The result was keep. Consensus is that, despite being a small private school, it qualifies as a high school (presumed notable) and enough sources exist to verify the article's content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable private academy for special needs students. No non-trivial third party sources (google and gnews don't turn up anything), article ammounts to little more than a press-release or ad. Article would probably qualify under G11 if it weren't about a school. 2 says you, says two 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Catherine Asaro. After reading the discussion, the best thing to do is to merge the articles to a cover one. As no such article exists at the moment, I am making temporal redirects to the author's page. Tone 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as before; unsourced. non-notable fictional character bios that are inappropriate for inclusion. delete.
Also nominating:
These are all insignificantly improved since their prior no consensus closes.
Jack Merridew 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is riddled with original research and in fact unsourced research. There is no reason for a surname to be notable - especially when the substantially questionable claims are historic and not backed by secondary sources. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per H2O(s). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability reason given in the article. It's only a standard expressway in Delhi presumably. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article page should actually have been a category rather than a separate page. I propose we delete the page and have a category instead. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a WP:Coatrack and pure WP:Synthesis, just like Occupation symbols below. Nowhere is the topic of "Symbols of totalitarianism", also referring to the legal status of swastika and the hammer and sickle, analyzed as a topic by secondary sources, making it not notable as well. Article was created by User:Digwuren who has been banned for one year due to the EEML case. Anyway, deprodded by User:Sander Säde. Abductive (reasoning) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a WP:Coatrack and pure WP:Synthesis. Nowhere is the topic of "Occupation symbols", referring to the legal status of swastika and the hammer and sickle and others such as the old Soviet Republic flags, analyzed as a topic by secondary sources, making it not notable as well. Article was created by User:Digwuren who has been banned for one year due to the EEML case, which I had managed to ignore until now. The term in Estonian is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, should anybody want to check for secondary sources by that. Anyway, deprodded by User:Sander Säde with the edit summary "rm prod, nonsense given as reason for prodding". Abductive (reasoning) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any significant coverage for this software product. Fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Thanks to Cirt (talk · contribs), the article now meets the guidelines, so the grounds for deletion are no longer present. I kindly want to remind folks that AfDs are not ment as a means to improve articles. — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character who does not appear on screen until Spring of next year, therefore violation WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create closer to the time if the character does indeed become notable. WossOccurring (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, seems to be a burger bar with a children's play area outside, not an amusement park. And totally uncited. Rapido (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Montenegro Airlines. The list is not so long that it would need a separate article. Tone 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory but this is article is nothing but a directory - of destinations served by a particular airline. Created to "move from main article", but it's such a short list that seems unneccessary. Also has no context or content other than links so speedy deletable on two counts, but I'm assuming context will follow. I42 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this professor sufficiently notable? He won what appeared to be a notable award (COPSS Presidents' Award), but the winners of that award largely don't have articles. I see no other indicator of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Valid points have been made here that this case had no lasting impact; but equally there is a good argument that it passes the notability threshold anyway through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. I personally find merit in the argument that this could possibly be better portrayed via a merge to Tiger Management, but there is certainly no consensus here to delete this or to impose a merge. ~ mazca talk 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this AfD was started by a userid who is now indefinitely blocked. However, it's in my view still an AfD that's worth running to conclusion, and therefore I choose to stand behind the edit that started the AfD even if I personally may not agree with the reasons offered for deletion. Determining if the article documents a notable event will be useful. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE: Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued. Much of article consists of padding, down to the index number, synthesis. Classic WP:MASK, even after some paring down. Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial lawsuits. Compare this rubbish to articles on notable lawsuits such as the "hot coffee case," Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
disruptive and needs to stop. Even if I were Weiss, Robertson or Shepard, and I'm not either of those gents, this AfD would need to be determined on whether it meets notability standards. You can run but you can't hide from that. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't come along to redact your comments. No, actually I'm not surprised. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. In any case, this article is going to be kept. But with the number of outstanding "delete" votes, we can't be sure that they all want to change their opinion, so I'll just say NC to be safe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, nothing but WP:OR - failed ((prod))
after sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as copyright infringement. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pirate radio DJ, completely unreferenced Rapido (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Help review good articles 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable career minor leaguer. Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pirate radio station; the references appear to be webpages written by involved parties, not media references Rapido (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at the highest amateur swimming level which is FINA World Aquatics Championships not FINA World Cup which Felicia has competed in. simply being a member of the US National team squad does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this dating website. It seems to fail WP:WEB. Tim Song (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable XBOX repairman with a YouTube channel. The article probably asserts enough notability to get past speedy, yet actually to my surprise searches like moore "xbox slave" return nothing genuine, and I can't find anything else that could establish his notability. Possible WP:ARTSPAM. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure, Jimfbleak speedy deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this but am voluntarily converting it to an AfD because on reconsideration I guess it plausibly asserts some degree of notability in being a co-CEO of a media company with a notable rapper. However, I can't find any sources for the company "Salem International, Inc.," and am concerned it may be a WP:HOAX (see Google, for instance). There's a company with such a name (see [22]), but it's a Virgin Islands-based subsidiary of Salem Sportswear, Inc. Other searches that should turn up results don't. Searches like this one don't fill me with confidence that he's involved in a significant venture with the rapper Kurupt. There's a Blake Baida whose LinkedIn profile lists him as owning Salem International, and a few more unconvincing results if you search under "Blake Salem," but all in all he's certainly not notable, and I have to say it's possible that this article isn't entirely accurate. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:SouthernNights — ækTalk 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a guide for how to use a software. This was (according to Coren Search Bot) a transcription from a wiki on EHCP (like all the other random wikia type wikis). No statement of notability. Also included another article by same author that's the same. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Porn actress, does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Seems to have done some web stuff, but nothing catalogued at IAFD. Author contested PROD, and its username is the same as her the production company she's apparently affiliated with. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I don't want to delete this article, rather have it rewritten as it is a notable topic. On the other hand, it is clearly a POV fork and not neutral, if it isn't someone's essay or dissertation. At the same time, this new editor published this very same (unchanged) article under "medical quackery in pakistan", which clearly states the point of view of this person. Lastly, the "reference" links to a healthcare providing website (which doesn't really back up the dissertation) riddled with "testimonials", so there's the possible connection of promotion. Either way though, this article's quality is severely atrocious and riddled with original research, and I am nominating it for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not state notability. Google news gives no hits. Listed to AfD instead of CSD because I'm not an expert on Japanese/International sites. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'insufflation' means 'to blow'. This article is about the intranasal administration of drugs, which is something different. I believe that because this article purports to be about a medical concept, it should be held to strict standards of verifiability. I cannot find the word 'insufflate' being used in this way in any online dictionary. The cited sources do not uphold the purported definition of the term. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (a trained doctor)[reply]
2. The blowing or breathing (of something) in; in Med. the blowing of air, etc. into the lungs, or of gas, vapour, or powder into or on some part of the body. 1823 CRABB Technol. Dict., Insufflation (Med.), the blowing into any cavity. 1849-52 TODD Cycl. Anat. IV. 1046/2 Insufflation in the dead body is not the movement of inspiration in the living subject. 1876 BARTHOLOW Mat. Med. (1879) 4 By the method of insufflation solid medicinal agents in a finely-divided state are applied to various parts of the respiratory tract. 1887 J. W. BURGON in Fortn. Rev. Apr. 593 With the insufflation of his soul, Adam received also the grace of the Holy Spirit. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 681 The insufflation of iodoform..has given good results. 1898 Ibid. V. 198 Violent inspiratory efforts..and..consequent insufflation of infective secretion into healthy lung.
Also the third definition is medical.
The definition given for insufflator is also relevant:3. The condition of being inflated or distended with air. 1866 A. FLINT Princ. Med. (1880) 244 The names acute emphysema and insufflation are given to a dilatation of the air-cells frequently met with in the lungs of those who have suffered from severe dyspn{oe}a during the last days or hours of life. 1877 ROBERTS Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 171 The lungs are in many cases the seat of acute insufflation.
LittleHow (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]A contrivance for insufflating. a. An instrument for blowing air into the lungs or for injecting powders into a cavity, a wound, etc. b. A kind of injector for blowing air into a furnace. 1872 COHEN Dis. Throat 192 Astringent powders may be propelled upon the parts..from the insufflator of Rauchfuss. 1886 Syd. Soc. Lex., Ribemont-Dessaigne's Insufflator, an instrument for inflating the lungs in an asphyxiated newborn child. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 682 To insufflate the nose with iodoform by means of Kabierski's insufflator.
[f. L. insuffl{amac}t-, ppl. stem of insuffl{amac}re (post-cl.), f. in- (IN-2) + suffl{amac}re to blow upon. Cf. F. insuffler (14-15th c.).] 1. trans. To blow or breathe in.
Merge with Nasal administration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had split this article from Insufflation because the latter mostly described the religious context (though most of the links to that article were in the medical context). It did not make sense to have them together in the same article (at least, not as it was written). I can't otherwise vouch for Insufflation (medicine) as I split it pretty much as-was. (See also Talk:Insufflation (medicine)#Split or Talk:Insufflation#Merger proposal) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pubmed shows that Insufflation is a widely and diversely used word in medicine with it appearing in 1301 medical article titles and 4378 article abstracts. Some of these usages are already in wikipedia though not mentioned in the article such as Artificial_respiration#Insufflations. --LittleHow (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Contested prod, rationale was Makes a claim of notability, but no real evidence thereof. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. One of these articles is already having an AfD, thus it is inappropriate to raise another. This seems to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These 3 articles are about assasination plots and scares of the Obamas. I see that there is growing support for deletion of the Hawaii article, therefore I will agree with the possible consensus and call for equal treatment of all 3 articles, which would be delete. They are all minor plots where no shots were fired so I can kind of see why some want deletion. All involved the alleged assasin travelling, but in the Hawaii case, the person travelled all the was from Boston. This is not a pointy request but an attempt for uniformity in Wikipedia. Hopefully, someone will help lengthen the Hawaii article to change opinions about retention/deletion.
The Tennessee and Denver articles are very long but the police admit that these were just early failures, early cases that don't even resemble a real assassination or attempts (like JFK or that guy in the Republic of Georgia) but just some evil clowns with stupid ideas (which is still punishable by jail so don't copy them. Standard TV warning: Kids, don't do this at home)
Maybe some may support merging all 3 articles together. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too arcane and dated. I admit that I am pretty ignorant of British railway systems, but this seems like it is too Byzantine of a topic for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan through Google hits produces nothing but the Wikipedia page itself and the artist's MySpace page, leading me to believe it was self-promotional. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Xplanet. Nobody argued this should be kept, so I'm turning it into a redirect to Xplanet, where it's already mentioned as a derivative. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only WP:SECONDARY ref I found for this the macosxhints.com one, which I've added to the article. Now, that site accepts user submissions, but they are filtered by a professional journalist who also works for MacWorld. This entry was actually submitted (and approved) by himself. So, it's a self-published source, albeit by a professional. This nomination should be considered a weak delete !vote. Pcap ping 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Schmucky's comment because software can't be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A first debate on this closed without consensus. Let's aim to get consensus this time. There are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the contest that would demonstrate notability. External link 1 is a press release republished in a newspaper. Link 2 is the competition's own site. Link 3 is another press release. Link 4 is, well, yet another press release on a site that apparently does not have an editorial policy. Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance (majority of hits for a book she authored) and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP, does not indicate encyclopedic notability, spammy, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-18t14:09z 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references listed outside of industry publications. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable horse breeder. The last paragraph is copied from what appears to be his death notice -- the article doesn't mention it, but he died this past November 2. My condolences, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and I can't find anything that would indicate he passes WP:BIO. Speedy was declined and PROD removed, so it's here now. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: the [version] of the article did mention his death and funeral.[reply]
The result was delete. Wow, a FL gets deleted through AFD, first time I see that. Anyway, the list of works is summarized in the author's article, if anyone is interested in adding more, let me know. Tone 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's something suspicious going on with this article. First, there was the article credited to Mr. Monahan but actually written by myself. Second, I'm pretty sure "Vanity Plates" was written by Christopher Caldwell. I'd like someone to look into this. Your help pages indicate that "All Encyclopedia content must be verifiable." Well, can we have that? --unsigned by User:Yuck_I_says
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable member of a barely notable group. No non-trivial coverage found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small software company, only external references are to industry newsletters. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No specific sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN club Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax; how are results from January 2010 known already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was ever a reason for a CSD category for "stuff me and my friends are doing", this is it. It appears to be the results of a video game competition played over the past few days by some friends. So it isn't a hoax, it isn't gibberish, it does have context, it doesn't fit into the A7 cats but it has no notability and no place in an encylopedia. Also applies to Cricket 2002 VG and Cricket 2002 World Rankings. Looking at the contributors talk page, 3 other variations of this page have been CSDd already, but I can't see how the criteria can be applied. Please snow delete. The-Pope (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Previously tagged as A7 by another editor but declined. HJMitchell You rang? 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]